RE: The most awkward conversation ever
March 19, 2019 at 3:20 pm
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2019 at 3:31 pm by Drich.)
(March 19, 2019 at 12:10 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:(March 19, 2019 at 10:02 am)Drich Wrote: Jesus did not have a twin he had a 1/2 brother. son of Joseph and Marry as Jesus was son ofGod and marry
Hello! Anyone home? 'Thomas' literally means 'twin' in Aramaic, as well as greek word Didymus, and as John tells us in 11:16 Then Thomas (also known as Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
sport, give me the benefit of the doubt.. If i say something that seems way way too obvious then maybe look a little deeper or ask a question... Thomas being a brother of Christ was a gnostic teaching/pov. however in mark Jesus' sibblings where named James, Joseph (Joses), Judas (Jude), and Simon as brothers of Jesus (Greek: ἀδελφοὶ, translit. adelphoi, lit. 'brothers').[1] Also mentioned, but not named, are sisters of Jesus. Some scholars[who?] argue that these brothers, especially James,[2] held positions of special honor in the .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus
Which again would make all of jesus brother and sister's half brothers and sisters as their father was joseph.
(March 19, 2019 at 3:19 pm)Yonadav Wrote:(March 19, 2019 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: just because you touched the based first, does not mean you represented them correctly. Yes you have knowledge, but you also know how to spin it to read as you want. or did you not know both liberal and conservative jews are born of the same law? All you demonstrated is a liberal view and I represented a more traditional 1st century view. I understand the spin most jews want to place on their history and respect the idea of not wanting to shite on their past, but at the same time it is what it is. and if you do not have the stomach to have a discussion like this, then know i am not forcing you to be apart of it. Meaning just as you find reason and belief to not want to think your ancestors would kill someone from basically something not even considered a crime. I find lots of reason (primarily because adultery is one of only 3 automatic death sentence sins, if and when it is verified.) and in this case the husband denying sex with his wife EVER, his word would be without question. pushing back the demand! to verify her virginity or face the consequence of stoning.You're getting desperate.
That said if you are stuck on the rule of two..
Her husband would be a witness to her adultery and her new born would be the second.
I didn't present a liberal view. I studied in a Orthodox kollel for several years, for several hours every day. My religious education is of a decidedly non-liberal nature. I have studied Sotah. You are reasoning like a goy. Again, being pregnant is not something that one can be stoned for. The law really is that at most, Joseph would have been able to demand that she drink the bitter waters.
I can't believe that we are arguing about this, because I am certain that you know that people can't be sentenced without witnesses to their crime-- it says that very clearly in the bible.
And the bible really clearly says that a man who suspects his wife of being unfaithful to him has no other recourse than to demand that she drink the bitter waters. You know that.
which is a liberal view. you can't tell me the 1st century orthodoxy would have just turned blind eye. to joseph claiming to never had sex with his wife and behold here she stands pregnant! That's the proof old sport!!! The BABY IS THE PROOF OF ADULTERY!!! Unless! she is in fact still a virgin! Which brings me back to "checking for her hymen" as this would have been a matter of life and death!
That said, you have displayed no evidence to support her pregnancy was not proof that joseph claim would be denied, you have quoted no sources all!! you done so far is attack the messenger/me. All the while I've quoted several sources which puts your interpretation on it's ends,and all you've seem to do is double down on trying to cast doubt on me.
I have asked you for a few citation of which you have failed to produce one to support your liberal views.. all you seem to be interested in is telling everyone how smart you think you are and i guess subsequently means you do not need to provide citation because your study habits..
I have study habits as well and yet seem to be able to provide a link or two when asked.. All I ask of you is that you put in at least 1/2 that efforts. provide one link that supports your extrapolation of the law and applies it with example in 1st century life.
if you are unwilling or unable to do this let this be evidence that there are more conservative views tot he torah than what you currently hold,